Two things: first of all, it wasn't until very near the end of the third century that the laws effectively attempting to institute a caste-based system by limiting occupational freedom were introduced under Diocletian. It's also important to note that it was more of an effect of Rome's decline than a cause of it: the constant civil war and near-collapse of the empire during the third century destroyed most of Rome's political institutions, of course, but it also did a number on the Roman economy. The new laws were part of Diocletian's attempt to stabilize the economy, which also included empire-wide pricing controls.well the real problem was that it stagnated. Rome has often been depicted as a peak of human cultural development. It really wasn't. From a high point around the reign of Augustus which ended with Marcus Aurelius roman quickly degenerated into what i would call totalitarianism. Can you believe that by the end of the second century it was illegal to choose a profession other than that of your father, you couldn't even leave the land you lived on.
Actually, going back to the original post, the Dominate that Diocletian introduced and Constantine refined and replaced the earlier Principate of Augustus was basically a much stronger central government. I would also argue that it did save Rome. The Roman Empire would likely have crumbled completely well before the fifth century if not for the reforms. It's also worth noting that the drive to centralize Roman government was a key element of Constantine's moving the capital to Byzantium, and that allowed the eastern half of the empire to persist for another millennium.
But back to my second point, I think it's a mistake to read modern political labels back onto ancient Rome. Yes, Diocletian's reforms are, in some respects, similar to modern totalitarianism, but there are some major differences in both cause and effect. Also, I'm not convinced that, even if we do classify Rome as a totalitarian state, that has any impact on whether or not it's "a peak of human cultural development." India's caste system was far more restricting than anything Imperial Rome ever devised, and India has produced some of the most valuable cultural artifacts the world has ever seen. The same can be said for Imperial China.
I don't think that's particularly fair or particularly true. True, much of Roman cultural and political life was centered around the city, but that's also true of almost every major civilization in world history. More importantly, taken as a whole, Roman history pretty much moves in exactly the opposite direction. One way of viewing the rise of the empire and the displacement of the republican system is as a response to the fact that the republic worked well for a small to medium-sized city-state, but given the realities of ancient life was more or less completely unresponsive to running a continent-wide empire. And it's also simply not true that the Legions "spent most of their time" terrorizing the rural populations. They spent most of their time securing the empire's borders, with intermittent periods of being called back to Rome (or, later, Constantinople, Ravenna, or wherever) to install a new emperor.Roman civilisation was essentially the enslavement of the countryside on behalf of the city. What the Legions spent most of their time doing was terrorising the rural population into surrendering food.
Also not fair nor true. On the whole, the Romans lacked the Greek preoccupation and skill with philosophy and science, but they certainly respected it throughout their history, which was a key part of the reason (alongside well as military and economic concerns) why imperial power tended to shift towards the Hellenized east over time. Also, one of the key reasons why Marcus Aurelius was so admired by both ancient observers was because of his philosophical work.Roman culture actively derided scientific advance, philosophy and scientific explorations were seen as effete. they destroyed the technological and scientific advances of the Greeks. The Greeks had developed clockwork mechanisms to the point where they were used to stage 'robotic' plays, and there was work being done with the power of steam - Romans fucked that over.
Greek science and philosophy was on the decline from the time of Alexander the Great. And I wouldn't blame Alexander for it, either: it was just a product of the era.
The empire fed itself fairly well, actually. They relied on certain provinces (mainly Egypt) to serve as their breadbasket, but that's not particularly unique: the USA would have troubling feeding itself if you took away the midwest, for instance. And I would also ask why, if the Germanic peoples were so much more "vibrant and healthy," they all rushed to imitate Roman institutions, culture, and (to some extent) politics when they were on the ascendant? Though I wouldn't suggest that Rome was perfect, they were without a doubt the "it" civilization when it came to social, cultural, and political standards even up through their decline.essentially the roman culture and its political structure meant that the empire couldn't feed itself and it couldn't evolve to meet challenges. In comparison the Germanic 'barbarians' were politically egalitarian and to some extent democratic, certainly more vibrant and healthy as a society.
To the point raised at the start of this thread, I'm not sure that we're even talking about alternate history here. Rome did become more centralized, and it did prevent its collapse. In the east. The Byzantines were far more centralized than the western-based empire ever was, and that's pretty much what kept them around, in some form or another, until the start of the early modern era. The problem was that when we think of "Rome," we think of a Mediterranean-wide empire stretching from the border of Scotland to the border of Arabia. And it's really not that easy to enforce a truly centralized authority over that large an area, even in the modern day, let alone in late antiquity. The only way a centralized government was going to help Rome was if Rome jettisoned its outlying regions and focused on a central, productive core. Which is what they did.